The 4-6% that most are guessing already factors in that ENTA only gets royalties on their contribution.
And, fwiw, there are generally 3 DAAs in the pack (though EU will have some patients on only 2 DAAs). That is why the general number is something like 30% (ENTA's portion) of the 15% (aprox guess) royalty rate.
Japan is mainly 1B.
HCV subtypes 1a and 1b are the most common genotypes in the United States (Fig. 3) (145). These subtypes also are predominant in Europe (35, 82, 91). In Japan, subtype 1b is responsible for up to 73% of cases of HCV infection (124). Although HCV subtypes 2a and 2b are relatively common in North America, Europe, and Japan, subtype 2c is found commonly in northern Italy. HCV genotype 3a is particularly prevalent in intravenous drug abusers in Europe and the United States (101). HCV genotype 4 appears to be prevalent in North Africa and the Middle East (1, 18), and genotypes 5 and 6 seem to be confined to South Africa and Hong Kong, respectively (17, 116). HCV genotypes 7, 8, and 9 have been identified only in Vietnamese patients (129), and genotypes 10 and 11 were identified in patients from Indonesia (127). There has been disagreement about the number of genotypes into which HCV isolates should be classified. Investigators have proposed that genotypes 7 through 11 should be regarded as variants of the same group and classified as a single genotype, type 6 (30, 83, 118, 128).
ABBV's T-Pac incorporates interferon into the all oral combination?
Did they somehow find a way to put it in a pill? Or do you inject it into your tongue?
And you might want to let the FDA know they made a mistake on the lable. it says it is approved for chirotic patiants.
Really, you should make at least some attempt to know what you are talking about.
The complexity if because it was (and to some extent still is) what the "product" is. They will sell only the 3 DAA product here in the US, in the EU they will sell a good bit of the 2 DAA product. I think Japan is also 2 DAA. The reason for this is that the genotypes differ across regions.
So there was a reason to struct the deal in a somewhat complicated manned as it was ( and still is) unlcear how much of the product is from ENTA.
It is very common in this business that terms are kept somewhat fuzzy.
But where the hell is Marry Ann?
Normally I am not the impatient type in this game, but I might have some year end tweeking, and would like to know where I stand.
They did not have an AdCom meeting. These are not required, and the FDA has been skipping them in clear cut cases where there is nothing worth discussing.
ARRY gets another $20M and up to double digit royalties, but they no longer have the partner option. Milestones only if ONTY gets bought out within 3 years (seams unlikely).
This probably had more to do with further cash management than anything else. Not just the $20M, but also they will not have to kick in on the future trials.
Do you want them to prematurely break the blind on the trial just for investors? You do understand that doing so risks the trial?
Can you clarify the 2015 date for top line Marieanne data?
The Q3 report on the Roche website still says top line data in Q4 2014. I do agree that full info would likely be ASCO 2015.
I friggen hate waiting for Christmas morning :-)
Unfortunately, small biotech financing is a bit of a dirty game. Does not matter what the company does, somebody will get out in front shorting the stock, knowing they can easily make a quick buck once the shares are trading. Expect the PPS to recover reasonably quickly though.
But it's just a few pennies anyway. Certainly hoping for several dollars upside is very reasonable.
When NVS bought GSK's oncology drugs earlier this year, they picket up a second MEK inhibitor and therefor they were required to get rid of one or the other. The GSK drug, Mekinst, was already on the market so they decided to give ARRY back their drug.
The details of the transaction were mandated by the contract signed a few years ago.
There is virtually always a punitive clause when a partner drops or returns a drug like this. Else BP could partner drugs and then kill them.
It will not price at 5.22
That was a tentative number. It will end up pricing about where the market closes on the before the new shares are distributed. The advantage of buying shares via the IPO is that this stock is so thin, anybody wanting in "big" can not do so w/o jacking the price up. But if one just wants a few K shares, no need to subscribe to the offering.
Even if the drugs were similar, they kept the one the had 100% ownership in, and thus was more valuable. NVS/ARRAY had a US 50-50 profit split, high double digit royalties ex US, and milestone payments. Binimet was effectively worth less than half of Mekinst to NVS, even if just as valuable over all.
Thus the decision was easy.
I mentioned that as a possibility, and tend to doubt it also. It clearly is a direct result of NVS acquiring Mekinst, and I assume it was forced on them else they would have waited for the P3 trials (they pay for them anyway).
I assume the more likely reason was contractual.
That the drug was being returned was known for a while. It folioed from the NVS - GSK deal.
What was not known was that NVS had to kick in $85M or so, and that is worth about .60/s
So the AH pop was overdone, but the news is still a plus.
I think the negative was priced in when it was conditionally announced a while back. But the $85M was news to me.
BTW, presumably the return was forced by a contractual obligation (or perhaps antitrust) that prevented NVS from having 2 MCKs (they had recently acquired GSKs Mekinst). So it really was not all that negative.
ARRY gets the drug back,$85M cash, and NVTS is still funding the P3s and other trials in progress,